We are working on a brand new version of the game! If you want to stay informed, read our blog and register for our mailing list.
Bill: Police Arms Compromise Bill
Details
Submitted by[?]: National Thomasian Party
Status[?]: defeated
Votes: This is an ordinary bill. It requires more yes votes than no votes. This bill will not pass any sooner than the deadline.
Voting deadline: January 2178
Description[?]:
| Recognizing that in a state where standard fire-arms are legally available that the police must also be allowed access to firearms to protect their own safety and the safety of the public, but remaining firm in the belief that allowing all police officers the access to military grade firearms (e.g Machine guns, high calibre rifles, high explosives, etc) poses a risk to the public and opens up the potential of extreme abuse of police powers. Therefore the LSU proposes that all officers be provided only with standard firearms and that military grade firearms should only be given to small groups of specially trained police officers to be released at the discretion of the local head of police or senior officers within the national police force when dealing with an abnormally dangerous criminal act for which standard firearms would prove ineffective. |
Proposals
Article 1
Proposal[?] to change The weapons used by police forces.
Old value:: Police officers carry military-grade equipment.
Current: Police officers may only carry standard firearms apart from specially trained firearms units.
Proposed: Police officers may only carry standard firearms apart from specially trained firearms units.
Debate
These messages have been posted to debate on this bill:
| Date | 22:23:40, January 27, 2006 CET | From | The Mordusian Green Party | To | Debating the Police Arms Compromise Bill |
| Message | Seems like something we'd agree with. |
| Date | 23:12:20, January 27, 2006 CET | From | Agrarian Party of Mordusia | To | Debating the Police Arms Compromise Bill |
| Message | Accepted, on the condition that it will remain legal that the military can back the police, or else this bill would become rather "giving power into the hands of the street" like. |
| Date | 23:21:54, January 27, 2006 CET | From | National Thomasian Party | To | Debating the Police Arms Compromise Bill |
| Message | obviously we still agree with allowing military support. In fact in our opinion that is even more of a reason why the police do not need to all have military grade weapons. |
| Date | 05:27:55, January 28, 2006 CET | From | Country Labor Party | To | Debating the Police Arms Compromise Bill |
| Message | Mordusia's criminals will be pleased. |
| Date | 23:34:06, January 28, 2006 CET | From | Country Labor Party | To | Debating the Police Arms Compromise Bill |
| Message | Once again the LSU slanders our police, accusing them of possible corruption and abuse of power. |
| Date | 23:43:27, January 28, 2006 CET | From | Country Labor Party | To | Debating the Police Arms Compromise Bill |
| Message | And we also feel compelled to point out this -- In the euthanasia debate, a number of parties essentially assumed that doctors never make mistakes and never abuse their authority. Yet here, the LSU states that the mere possession of firearms "opens up the potential of extreme abuse". So a policeman with a weapon can abuse his authority but a doctor with his drugs cannot? That obviously is inconsistent and illogical. The real explanation is that some parties take whatever result they want and find a way to justify it afterwards, with absolutelt no consistency. |
| Date | 00:45:54, January 29, 2006 CET | From | National Thomasian Party | To | Debating the Police Arms Compromise Bill |
| Message | And you think that police are infalible and will never abuse their power whereas doctors are prone to abuse and must not be given important desicions. Maybe you are also inconsistent and illogical? or perhaps it is because you think about doctors and the police in different ways, much like the LSU does? Practice what you preach old boy, and think before you type. |
| Date | 04:29:16, January 29, 2006 CET | From | Country Labor Party | To | Debating the Police Arms Compromise Bill |
| Message | We NEVER claimed that ANY public official, whether police, doctor, or judge, is infallible. Not did we support taking decision-making power away from any official. But we support oversight for ALL public officials. We don't pick and choose based on personal preference. To the best of our knowledge, when the police fire their weapons, they must account for each bullet. If they kill someone, they are placed on administrative leave with pay while the incident is investigated. If the option to do something like that ever becomes available to this legislature, we will gladly vote for it. Even honest, conscientious, and ethical officials should support having a review process available, especially when a citizen dies because of the actions of a government official. |
| Date | 05:44:17, January 29, 2006 CET | From | Democratic Socialist Union | To | Debating the Police Arms Compromise Bill |
| Message | We support considering our previous proposal identical to this. Police should be armed, but not the same as our military. If they were, why have a military at all? Police should carry standard firearms except for special tactical units. |
subscribe to this discussion - unsubscribe
Voting
| Vote | Seats | |||||
| yes |
Total Seats: 252 | |||||
| no |
Total Seats: 273 | |||||
| abstain | Total Seats: 74 |
| Random fact: Players have a responsibility to differentiate between OOC (out-of-character) and IC (in-character) behaviour, and to make clear when they are communicating in OOC or IC terms. Since Particracy is a role-playing game, IC excesses are generally fine, but OOC attacks are not. However, players must not presume this convention permits them to harass a player with IC remarks that have a clear OOC context. |
| Random quote: "I worked at a factory owned by Germans, at coal pits owned by Frenchmen, and at a chemical plant owned by Belgians. There I discovered something about capitalists. They are all alike, whatever the nationality. All they wanted from me was the most work for the least money that kept me alive. So I became a communist." - Nikita Khrushchev |